ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.
The complainant’s case is that she availed a loan from the opp.party and repaid the entire amount with interest. But the opp.party has not returned the title deeds mortgaged with the opp.party. The complainant’s allegation is that as the mortgaged deeds were not released she could not partition the property. The complainant’s further allegation is that to pay of the loan, she tried to obtain a take over loan and that was also denied by opp.party. Hence she sustained loss.
Opp.party filed version. Opp.party submitted that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The son of the petitioner Mr. Sunil Kumar has taken a loan having No.OL No.249/03 and an amount of Rs.90,060/- is due on that amount. The same person also took another loan having No.OL 1488/01 in which an amount of Rs.1,07,690 is due. In both these loans the complainant mortgaged the same properly and hence it is impossible to release the title deeds. The further allegations of the complainant that she tried to obtain a take over loan and also due to the action of the opp.party she could not partition the property are denied by the opp.party.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party
2. Reliefs and costs.
For the complainant PW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext.P1 to P5 are marked.
No oral or documentary evidence for the opp.party
POINTS:
Complainant’s case is that she repaid the entire loan amount with interest properly. For showing the said contention the complainant produced Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 receipts. On perusal of Ext.P3 and P4 it is seen that the complainant had paid some amount . But there is nothing mentioned in Ext. P3 and P4 that the loan was closed. If the said loan closed, there is clear mentioning of the discharge of loan. While taking evidence PW.1 admitted that the complainant is a mortgagor in two loans as a security. According to PW.1 the entire loans were closed. But there is no evidence produced to show that the loans were closed. From the evidence, without closing the liability towards the bank, it is impossible to release the title deeds of the properly which was mortgaged in other loans.
In the result the complaint fails and the same is dismissed without cost.
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011.
:
.
I N D E X
List of witnesses for the complainants
PW.1. – Sunil Kumar
PwW.2. – D. Balaendran
List of documents for the complainants
P1. – Front cover Page of Loan Pass Book
P2. – Application sent to the Bank
P3. – Receipts
P4. – Receipt closing loan
P5. – Notice sent to the opp.party.
